CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 32647/96                       by Giuseppina PASSANNANTE                       against Italy          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:              MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                  N. BRATZA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 20 March 1996 by Giuseppina PASSANNANTE against Italy and registered on 19 August 1996 under file No. 32647/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Italian national currently residing in Cesenatico, Forlí. She is represented before the Commission by Mr Domenico Baldassarre, her husband.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.        The applicant, who suffers from migraines, wished to book a neurological examination. Thus, on 18 March 1996 the applicant phoned the public hospital in Cesena and she was told that she would have to call back the following August to book the specialist's examination. She was further told that, on the other hand, if she wished to pay for the examination at a cost of 150,000 Italian liras she could have an appointment with the neurologist on 22 March, that is to say four days later.        The two options which the applicant was offered pertain to two different systems: the reduced-fee-paying medical examination (the patient pays a reduced and pre-fixed amount called "ticket") is a service provided for by the public health service while the fee-paying examination is of a private nature. As a matter of fact, the Italian public health service is based on compulsory contributions which entitle those who pay them to certain services, among which medical examinations within public hospitals. However, a doctor who works in a public hospital, after having completed his due working hours for the hospital, can exercise privately his profession within the hospital facilities, if the hospital allows him to do so. The hospital retains a certain percentage of the doctor's fees as a "rent", for letting him use its structures. However, despite taking place in a public structure, such activity remains of a private nature.        The applicant, who could not afford to pay 150,000 liras but found it exorbitant having to wait five months only to book the examination, decided not to see the doctor at all.   COMPLAINT        The applicant complains that she has to wait about five months in order merely to book a specialist's visit in an Italian public hospital while she would be able to see the same specialist in the same hospital in only four days if she were to pay 150,000 Italian liras.   THE LAW        The applicant complains that she has to wait five months in order to book a reduced-fee-paying visit in a public hospital while she would wait only four days for a paying visit.        The Commission first recalls that private life, within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see Eur. Court HR, X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, para. 22 and, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Botta v. Italy judgment of 24 February 1998, para. 32, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1998).        The Commission notes that the applicant was offered the choice between two options: either she could make use of the public health service and pay a reduced and fixed fee (the so-called "ticket") but wait five months to book the medical examination or she could see the doctor privately, within four days, paying 150,000 Italian liras.          The Commission recalls that, while the essential object of Article 8 (Art. 8) is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private life (see Eur. Court HR, Stjerna v. Finland judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 299-B, p. 61, para. 38 and Eur. Court HR, Botta judgment of 24 February 1998, para. 33, cited above).        The Commission notes the Italian public health service is based on compulsory contributions which entitle those who pay them to certain services, among which medical examinations within public hospitals. Therefore, the Commission considers that, in such circumstances where the State has an obligation to provide medical care, an excessive delay of the public health service in providing a medical service to which the patient is entitled and the fact that such delay has, or is likely to have, a serious impact on the patient's health could raise an issue under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.        The Commission notes the absence under domestic law of time- limits within which a person should be granted the required medical service.        However, although the applicant submits that she had to wait five months in order merely to book the medical examination, she did not prove nor even allege that the above delay had a serious impact on her physical or psychological conditions.        The Commission further notes that the applicant, after the telephone conversation with the hospital's operator, apparently renounced from seeing the doctor which indicates, in the Commission's opinion, that she did not consider the medical visit crucial for her health.        Therefore the Commission considers that the circumstances of the present case are not such as to warrant the conclusion that the delay of the public authorities raises a serious issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and that the present application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.        M.F. BUQUICCHIO                             M.P. PELLONPÄÄ         Secretary                                  President    to the First Chamber                       of the First Chamber